Job analysis

ABSTRACT

A process and system for generating a job value for a job that can be used to provide a definitive measure of contribution of the job to an entity. The process involves generating an impact value representing effect of the job on an entity, generating an input value representing attributes of the job, and generating the job value on the basis of the impact value and the input value. The impact value is determined on the basis of an accountability value and a job type value. The accountability value represents results expected from the job by the entity, and the type value represents the significance of the job to the entity. The input value is determined on the basis of a knowledge value, and an integration value, and an interpersonal value. The knowledge value represents the level of knowledge required to perform the job. The integration value represents the level the job requires the coordination, integration and direction of resources. The interpersonal value represents the level of skill required to relate to and lead other parties.

The present patent application is a non-provisional application ofInternational Application No. PCT/AU02/01041, filed Aug. 5, 2002.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to job analysis, and in particular tomethods of generating values that may be used to quantify a job, and asystem for executing the method.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

One of the inherent difficulties in commerce is being able to generate adefinitive measure of work or the contribution of work and jobs. Theability to identify, define, measure and compare the contribution ofwork or jobs to an entity, such as an employer, can prove to beparticularly significant in determination of remuneration for employees,succession planning, negotiating with organisations, such as unions, anddisputes involving dismissal of an employee. The ability to providedefinitive measures can also be used to justify remuneration packages,at all levels in a company or organisation. The ability to provide adefinitive measure however, and in particular one that is accepted bysociety, has to date proved elusive. It is desired however to provide amethod and system that can be used to generate a definitive measure orat least provide a useful alternative to existing methods and systems.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with the present invention there is provided a process,performed by a computer system, for generating data representing a jobvalue for a job, including:

-   -   generating an impact value representing effect of said job on an        entity, such as an organization or employer;    -   generating an input value representing attributes of said job;    -   generating data representing said job value on the basis of said        impact value and said input value, wherein said job value        provides a definitive measure of contribution of the job to the        entity; and    -   displaying the job for use by said entity, using said data.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Preferred embodiments of the present invention are hereinafter describedwith reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein:

FIG. 1 is a diagram of a preferred embodiment of a diagnostic system;

FIG. 2 is schematic diagram of impact data held in the diagnosticsystem;

FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram of input data held in the diagnosticsystem;

FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of a diagnostic process executed by the system;and

FIG. 5 is a diagram of a business driver model.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION

The diagnostic system 2, as shown in FIG. 1, executes a method foridentifying, defining, measuring and comparing the contribution work orjobs make to an entity, such as an organisation or employer. The methodinvolves assessing work using a set of discrete variables and can beapplied to all kinds of work at all levels in an entity. The method isexecuted on the basis of data stored in data tables of the diagnosticsystem, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. The system is able, to display theresults of the job analysis, after selection is made concerning thevalues of attributes to be assigned to a job. Alternatively, the datacan be represented in spreadsheet form, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. Thediagnostic system 2 is a standard personal computer system havingsoftware code stored on disk storage thereof to execute the stepsdescribed below. Alternatively, the steps executed by the software canbe executed by dedicated hardware components. The steps may be executedon one computer system or executed in a distributed manner across anumber of systems connected by a communications network, such as theInternet. The values derived from the method can also be determineddirectly from the attribute data for the variables, as described below.

FIG. 5 illustrates a model for defining how work contributes to theachievement of organisational purpose. This model identifies all the keyelements involved in achieving organisational success and indicates howthese elements should be aligned and integrated. The section of themodel which specifies the elements of Structure and Accountabilities 40and People Capabilities 42 defines how work should be carried out.‘Structure’ defines the way that work is linked across an organisation,‘Accountabilities’ define the results expected from each job and‘Capabilities’ define what individuals need to have in order to fulfilthe job requirements. These elements define roles for people and providethe basis for organising work so that individuals are able to focustheir own contributions and results towards the common goals of anorganisation. The organisation may be any employer entity, such as alarge public company, government department, small business, or singleperson. These two elements are important for organisationaleffectiveness. Effective utilisation of available organisationalresources is dependent on appropriate alignment and integration of thesetwo elements. People Capabilities 42 can be identified and measuredaccording to ‘Input’ variables, and Structure and Accountabilities 40according to ‘Impact’ variables, discussed below, and this makes itpossible to determine relative measures for work.

Structure and Accountability are most directly influenced by BusinessPlatforms 44, the processes that drive the operations and create valuefor customers and Organisation Culture 46, how work is done (e.g. whomakes decisions about what, how problems are solved and innovationsmade). These in turn are influenced by what the organisation sets out toachieve, Strategic Objectives 48, and what its people aspire to, Vision,Mission and Values 50, which are shaped and articulated by Leadership 52at all levels. These elements, which are shown on the left of FIG. 5,have a longer term and transforming effect on the operations byinfluencing structure, people, process and rewards. It is also thesethings that drive investment in the future of the organisation.Investment can be considered not only from an external perspective wherevarious public companies compete for capital investment from the market,but also form an internal perspective where various operations withinthe company compete for investment allocations from limited corporateresources.

In any entity, the contribution work, activities or jobs make to theentity's purpose can be identified, defined, measured and comparedaccording to a set of variables used by the diagnostic system 2. Thevariables used are: (i) Impact and (ii) Input. Impact represents theintended effect of the job on the entity. Input represents attributes ofthe job and in particular the capabilities required to resource the job.

Dimensions or attributes of Impact are accountability, representing theresults expected; and type, representing how results are achieved.Dimensions or attributes of Input are: knowledge, representing the levelof knowledge required; integration, representing coordination andsynchronisation of required resources; and interpersonal, representingskills required to relate to and lead others.

More particularly, the variables used to generate the Impact and Inputvalues are:

-   (i) Accountability (Acc). This represents results expected from the    job. Levels of Accountability are indicated by the judgement job    holders are expected to exercise to achieve the required outputs,    and are determined by the complexity of the processes involved and    the extent of their effect on an entity. Seven levels of    accountability, each with a number of sublevels are defined, as    shown in FIG. 2. The levels are constrained by and represent a known    path for a job. They notionally also represent the limits of    individuals. For example, level 1 may represent the accountability    of a painter who has been employed to paint a room of a house. This    type of job may have a number of sublevels up to 4 so that the    painter can progress from an apprentice up to a person in charge of    team of painters. Level 2 accountability may represent a job held by    an interior designer who is responsible for the appearance of the    room. For each level and respective sublevel an accountability value    is assigned, ranging from 1 to 16, as shown in FIG. 2.-   (ii) Type. This represents how the job has its most important and    direct impact on the entity's results. Three types are defined    having values 1, 2 and 3, as shown in FIG. 2. For example, a team    leader may be assigned a value of 1, a team member may be assigned a    value of 2, and a job having a support or advisory role is assigned    a value of 3.-   (iii) Knowledge (Kn). This represents the type and level of    knowledge required to perform the job at a competent level. Six    levels are defined, as shown in FIG. 3.    -   The levels are assigned values from 1 to 6, representing        increasing knowledge. A job requiring only a foundation        understanding of a process (PF) will be allocated a value of 1,        a job requiring a standardised understanding of a process (PS)        is allocated a value of 2, whereas a job requiring an advance        understanding of a process (PA) is assigned a value of 3. The        remaining levels represent concept universal (CU), concept        specialised (CS) and concept expert (CX) being allocated values        4 to 6 respectively. The concept universal level represents an        entry level which may be having acquired a university degree,        whereas the concept specialised level represents the acquisition        of knowledge that may have been acquired in the workplace after        acquiring the degree. The concept expert level indicates that        the knowledge represents that of an international expert in the        field, for example an expert in business management.-   (iv) Integration (In). This represents a requirement in the job to    coordinate, integrate and direct resources. Nine levels are defined,    from values 1 to 9, as shown in FIG. 3, with the highest level    representing high integration skills. For example, the activities of    jobs at the first level do not require any integration with the    activities of others. Jobs at this level of integration are ‘stand    alone’ and do not require the individual to coordinate or link with    the actions of others for successful completion. Jobs at the highest    level of integration, however require an individual to lead multiple    profit centres representing different unrelated businesses, markets    or regions of the world. This requires significant integration of    major streams of activity for the organisation to be successful as a    whole.-   (v) Interpersonal (Ip). This represents skills required to relate to    and lead others. Five levels are defined, as shown in FIG. 3, from    values 1 to 5. Again the highest value represents excellent    interpersonal skills. For example, jobs at the first level require    only minimal interaction with others while jobs at the highest level    are required to lead others by shaping a vision and modelling    leadership behaviours.

Using values assigned to the variables described above, values can beobtained for Impact (IMP) and Input (INP) using the process shown inFIG. 4. The Impact value is derived by the diagnostic system executingthe following:Impact=3(Acc−1)+(3−Type)−(Integer(Acc/2)′2 when >0)  (1)where Acc represents the accountability value. The procedure dictated byEquation (1) prescribes a weighting of 3 to accountability at level 1,but above level 1 prescribes an average weighting of 2.5. Theseweightings have been derived from the variation in contribution whichoccurs at different organisational levels. In level 1 the incrementalcontribution in accountability increases more strongly across sublevelsthan it does in the higher levels. Hence a weighting of 3 has beenprescribed for level 1 compared with weightings of 2.5 at the higherlevels. The type value is given a basic weighting of 1. The diagnosticsystem can execute a procedure based on equation 1, as shown in FIG. 4,or can simply access the values for Impact from the data table, as shownin FIG. 2, using the accountability and type values as an index. A userof the system simply has to submit an accountability value and a typevalue for the job. The data values for the Accountability and Typevariables entered by a user of the system or predetermined for aparticular job selected by the user, are accessed by the system 2 foruse in the generation procedure of FIG. 4.

The Input value is derived, as shown in FIG. 4, by executing thefollowing:Input=2Kn+In(or (2In−3) when In>3)+Ip  (2)where Kn represents the knowledge value, In represents an integrationvalue and Ip represents an interpersonal value. Knowledge is given aweighting of 2 and integration a weighting of 1 below level 4, but aweighting of 2 above level. 4. For jobs below integration level 4, theknowledge requirement is more significant than integration inachievement of the job's objectives. Whereas at integration levels 4 andabove, the requirement to integrate activities and resources is moreimportant than it is at the lower levels and has been weighted at thesame as knowledge at these levels. Interpersonal has a weighting of 1.Again, the diagnostic system either executes a process, as shown in FIG.4, to calculate the Input value based on Equation (2) or the value isderived directly from a data table holding the Input values, as shown inFIG. 3, using the knowledge, integration and personal values as anindex. The data values for the Knowledge, Integration and Interpersonalvariables are selected and entered by a user into the system 2 orpredetermined for a particular job, and the system then accesses thesedata values to generate the Input data. As can be seen from FIGS. 2 and3, the Impact and Input values can also be derived directly from aspreadsheet including these values related to the respective variables.

Once values for the variables are determined, and Input and Impactvalues determined, job analysis can be performed to derive different jobmeasures. For instance, a direct measure of the worth of a job can beobtained from a job value, that is derived by the diagnostic systemsumming the Impact and Input values, ie job value (JV)=Impact+Input.

A measure to determine whether a job has been allocated or positionedcorrectly can be represented by the difference between Impact and Input.This is because when jobs are correctly designed and operate at optimumeffectiveness, there is a fundamental balance required between theImpact of a job and the Input required to successfully achieve theImpact.

A job design (JD) value that can be compared with the difference betweenImpact and Input, is obtained by the diagnostic system executingJD=Acc-Type-k, where k is constant as determined for an entity.Generation of the job design value is based on two principles. The firstis that Impact is relatively more significant than Input at higherlevels of Accountability because process complexity and the extent ofeffect of jobs are leveraged on the resources required for optimumperformance. The second principle is that Input is relatively moresignificant than Impact at higher levels of Type because the team andadvisory levels of Type require more collaboration and expert knowledgefor optimum performance. Accordingly the job design value (JD) can becompared directly with the difference between Impact and Input to assessthe allocation and positioning of jobs in an organisation for optimumeffectiveness.

Organisational effectiveness (OE) is based on OE=f(IC+OS) where IC isindividual capabilities; and OS is structure and accountabilities. Ameasure of OE can be determined by measuring and assessing therelationship between each of the variables that make up IC and OS, ie:OE=f(INP,IMP,JD,IMP.sub.1,IMP.sub.2)  (3)where INP is Input for a job, IMP is Impact for a job, IMP, is Impact ofa direct supervisory job and IMP.sub.2 is Impact of subordinate jobs.The organisational effectiveness for an entity, governed by a job forthat entity, is therefore determinable on the basis of a function usingthe Input, Impact and job design values for that job and then Impactvalues for any supervisory roles, ie of a superior, and Impact valuesfor any subordinate jobs associated with that job.

The diagnostics system, and the methods that it executes, are thereforeparticularly advantageous as they enable a number of measures to beobtained concerning the worth of a job to an organisation or entity.This can then be used to provide objective job value measures for anumber of purposes, including justification for setting remuneration forjobs, succession planning, dismissal disputes, and negotiations withunions.

Many modifications will be apparent to those skilled in the art withoutdeparting from the scope of the present invention as herein describedwith reference to the accompanying drawings.

1. A computer system, comprising: a processor; software code, executableby said processor, for: generating an accountability value representingresults expected from the job by an employer entity; generating a typevalue representing importance of the job to the employer entity;generating an impact value representing effect of a job on said employerentity; generating an input value representing attributes of said job;generating job data representing a job value for said job, on the basisof said impact value and said input value wherein said job valueprovides a definitive measure of contribution of the job to the employerentity; displaying the job value for use by said employer entity, usingsaid job data; generating design data representing a job design valuefor the job on the basis of said accountability value and said typevalue; displaying the job design value for use by said employer entity,using the design data; and wherein said input value is determined on thebasis of:Input Value=2Kn+In (or 2(2In−3) when In>3)+Ip wherein Kn represents aknowledge value, In represents an integration value and Ip represents aninterpersonal value.
 2. A computer system as claimed in claim 1, whereinsaid job value is used to set remuneration for said job.
 3. A computersystem as claimed in claim 1, wherein said job value is used todetermine the allocation of jobs within said entity.
 4. A computersystem as claimed in claim 1, said impact value is determined on thebasis of an accountability value and said type value.
 5. A computersystem as claimed in claim 1, wherein the type value has differentvalues for a team leader, a team member and a support role.
 6. Acomputer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said impact value isgenerated based on:Impact Value=3(Acc−1)+(3−Type)−(Integer(Acc/2)−2 when >0) where Accrepresents the accountability value.
 7. A computer system as claimed inclaim 1, wherein the knowledge value represents the level of knowledgerequired to perform the job.
 8. A computer system as claimed in claim 1,wherein the integration value represents the level the job requires thecoordination, integration and direction of resources.
 9. A computersystem as claimed in claim 1, wherein the interpersonal value representsthe level of skill required to relate to and lead other parties.
 10. Acomputer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said job value isgenerated by adding said impact value to said input value.
 11. Acomputer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said job design value isused to determine whether the job has been allocated correctly for theentity.
 12. A computer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said jobdesign value is generated on the basis of: Job Design Value=Acc−Type−k,where Acc is the accountability value, Type is the type value and k is aconstant.
 13. A computer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein anorganisational value for said entity is generated on the basis of saidimpact value, said input value, said job design value, and an impact ofrelated jobs.
 14. Computer readable storage having code stored thereonfor use in executing a process comprising: generating an accountabilityvalue representing results expected from the job by an employer entity;generating a type value representing importance of the job to theemployer entity; generating an impact value representing effect of a jobon said employer entity; generating an input value representingattributes of said job; generating job data representing a job value forsaid job, on the basis of said impact value and said input value whereinsaid job value provides a definitive measure of contribution of the jobto the employer entity; displaying the job value for use by saidemployer entity, using said job data; generating design datarepresenting a job design value for the job on the basis of saidaccountability value and said type value; displaying the job designvalue for use by said employer entity, using the design data; andwherein said input value is determined on the basis of:Input Value=2Kn+In (or 2(2In−3) when In>3)+Ip wherein Kn represents aknowledge value, In represents an integration value and Ip represents aninterpersonal value.